Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

GOP Rep. Francis Rooney, Who Is Open to Impeachment, Announces Retirement From Congress

GOP Rep. Francis Rooney, Who Is Open to Impeachment, Announces Retirement From Congress

“I thought the idea was you came and did your public service and left, you accomplish what you want to accomplish and you left”

https://youtu.be/WH-JDg4fpD0

Republican Congressman Francis Rooney represents Florida’s 19th district. He recently said that he may be able to support Trump’s impeachment. Now he has announced that he is retiring.

This means that if the House actually pulls the trigger on impeachment, Rooney could support it without facing any consequences for doing so.

His decision not to run for reelection may indicate a sense of uncertainty about getting reelected given his pro-impeachment stance.

Politico has details:

GOP congressman who was open to impeachment calls it quits

Rep. Francis Rooney (R-Fla.), who was the first House Republican express openness to voting to impeach President Donald Trump, announced his retirement on Saturday.

“I thought the idea was you came and did your public service and left, you accomplish what you want to accomplish and you left,” Rooney said on Fox News. “And that’s what I want to be an example to do. And I’m also tired of the intense partisanship that stops us from solving the big questions that America needs solved.”

The two-term congressman confirmed his plans shortly afterward in an interview with POLITICO.

The news came one day after Rooney, a former construction company owner and major GOP donor, told CNN he couldn’t dismiss the possibility that the president committed an impeachable offense in his dealings with Ukrainian officials. “I don’t think you can rule anything out unless you know all the facts,” he said…

The Florida Republican said Friday he was “shocked” by Mick Mulvaney’s admission of a quid pro quo, saying it would be difficult for the White House to walk back the comments and that it “very well could be” a turning point in the Ukraine saga.

“He basically said it’s a quid pro quo, which is not a good thing,” Rooney said. “The only thing I can assume is he meant what he had to say. … It’s not an etch-a-sketch.”

This is likely just an excuse for Rooney, but unfortunately, his ill-informed comment will be held up by Democrats and the media as ‘proof’ of wrongdoing.

You’ll be shocked to learn that Rooney, a Florida Republican, is a big buddy of Jeb Bush and was a major donor to his 2016 presidential campaign.

The Jewish Insider reported in 2017:

Rep. Rooney: Newest Bush Ally During Trump Era

It is not a popular time to be a close ally of the Bush family in Washington. Along with a photo of his grandchildren, hanging on Representative Francis Rooney’s (R-FL) office wall is a picture of the Congressman smiling with former President George W. Bush. The 43rd Commander in Chief appointed Rooney as U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican where he served from 2005-2008.

Rooney Holdings Inc, owned by the former US Envoy, donated more than $2 million to Governor Jeb Bush’s campaign for President.

Rooney talked about his decision to retire on FOX News last night. Watch:

As the old saying goes, with friends like these . . . .

Maybe it’s time for a second wave Tea Party to replace Republicans like Rooney in Congress.

Featured image via YouTube.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Quite frankly, I reject the premise that the executive – responsible for law enforcement – cannot request assistance to investigate corruption merely because a suspect is a declared candidate for office.

Of course, the hypocrisy on the dems on this doesn’t help their position, but even were they not, as Candace Owens says, bottomlessly hypocritical, the premise is unsupportable.

    OrJustThink in reply to Close The Fed. | October 20, 2019 at 11:01 am

    There is no premise as such. The potus can and should absolutely investigate any and all wrong-doings by any potential candidate. In fact, we have given potus an entire system to do it for him. You do understand that the “quid-pro-quo” (“tit for tat” for the layman) they are looking for is regarding him exchanging personal gain for information? If he received information without jeopardizing the integrity of the U.S. then nothing wrong was done and the dems should drop it.

    Imagine a town sheriff approaching a drug dealer and stating “I’ll give you back these drugs we confiscated if you’ll just turn over state evidence against the upcoming deputy running for my office”. It may reveal damming information about the deputy, but it seems like a lazy, reckless, dishonorable, and incompetent way to acquire said info. Finding the info through investigation Could reveal solid damming evidence, without making the sheriff look like a bafoon.

      One really has to understand quid pro quo, which no not many people seem to understand.

      In order for a quid pro quo to exist, both parties have to be engaged in a knowledgeable transaction. It is an offer of something of value in exchange for a service or other thing of value. In this case, no offer was made to the Ukrainians for their cooperation in the investigation. The Ukrainians had no knowledge that there was any specific aid forthcoming. And, most important, the Ukrainians had no reason to believe that anything would be withheld if they refused to cooperate or would be forthcoming if they did cooperate. So, a quid pro quo simply did not exist, at the tie of the conversation in question.

      Another thing to understand is that the President, as the person responsible for foreign affairs, has the authority to withhold planned foreign aid, either temporarily or permanently, based upon various factors. If he wants to delay release of foreign aid funds to a nation, until he sees concrete evidence that that nation is going to investigate internal corruption, as they have pledged, this is entirely within his authority.

      Finally, let us put this all into perspective.

      In 2016, the Obama administration used official US government assets to improperly and illegally surveil the Trump campaign and its members. It used official US government assets to concoct and pursue a foundationless assault upon candidate Trump and then President Trump. And, that is what is under investigation. The Ukraine, both private and government concerns, were involved in that effort. And, then VP Joe Biden’s son had close ties to both the public and private sector of that nation. He is, therefor, fair game for investigation.

      Secondly, until the Democrats made “foreign intervention” a reason for HRC’s loss, the legal definition of such was much looser than it is today. In 2016, opposition research, conducted among foreign nationals and even foreign governments at the request of a US candidate, did not rise to the level of “illegal foreign intervention”. In other words, at that time a candidate could ask questions, about a political opponent, of virtually any entity, foreign or domestic, without facing criminal charges of acting as a foreign agent or being the recipient of a foreign donation. The Dems changed that. They rewrote the definition of foreign intervention to slime Trump, while ignoring the fact that their actions now fell under the new umbrella. But, Trump and his advisors, have not forgotten. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. So, operating under the Democrat’s post Trump election standards, the Trump administration is actively investigating “foreign intervention” in the 2016 Presidential election. The Dems have hoisted themselves by their own petard on this one.

      What is so ironic about all of this is that, the Dems current problems are all of their own making. Trump, being a pragmatist, was willing to let bygones be bygones, after his election, and move on with his MAGA agenda. He stated that he was not going to pursue an indictment against HRC, for Servergate. All the Dems had to do was to shut up and attempt to stymie his agenda advancement through legislative means. As the Republican half of the Establishment Uniparty was in step with them regarding Trump’s agenda, this would not have been difficult. And, Trump, would not have been placed in the position of having to defend himself, his family and his associates. They forgot the golden rules of politics. Never put all of your eggs in one basket and always leave yourself a backdoor to get out.

        TheOldZombie in reply to Mac45. | October 20, 2019 at 2:14 pm

        Agreed.

        The Democrats had a chance to sweep Spygate and Hillary’s shenanigans under the rug but their insanity of Trump winning 2016 destroyed that option.

        And now they are starting to pay the price for it. AG Barr and Attorney Durham are going through everything and I can’t see either of them letting things slide.

          maxmillion in reply to TheOldZombie. | October 20, 2019 at 3:05 pm

          Yeah. When was the last time anyone thought “Lock her up!” let alone said it? Trump’s first broken promise.

          Max,

          It is called prioritization. Trump viewed his agenda to restore American greatness as the priority. he always has. He viewed prosecuting HRC for Servergate as being a very low importance. Politicians can not honor every promise they make in a campaign, usually because they have to husband their resources to fight all of the impediments placed in their path.

          IMHO, kick starting the US economy is of far greater importance than attempting to prosecute HRC for her Server.

          drednicolson in reply to TheOldZombie. | October 22, 2019 at 6:41 pm

          Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good, Max.

I further reject the premise that we cannot use the immense power and influence of the United States to accomplish law enforcement purposes.

    OrJustThink in reply to Close The Fed. | October 20, 2019 at 11:05 am

    It does’t look like anyone is trying to say otherwise. It seems like people are more concerned with using the “immense power and influence” to further personal gains over US interests.

      But no one is really concerned that Trump was using his immense power and influence to put personal gain over US interests because:

      1: There was ample cause to investigate Biden
      2: We have the transcript proving definitively there was no quid pro quo
      3: The Urainian prime minister said there was no pressure
      4: Ukraine had already opened an investigation
      5: They did not know the aid was being reviewed
      6: Democrat Senators had sent a letter with an explicit quid pro quo to Ukraine and no one cares
      7: Extortion is about 90% of diplomacy and would have been absolutely fine for the US to apply pressure to get help to clean up corruption
      8: Running for president does not give you immunity from having your past crimes investigated
      9: The DOJ had asked Trump to help
      10: The Democrats had applied ample pressure to the Ukraine for personal matters, and for election help with the Russian collusion BS.

      And the list goes on and on. So no. No one is actually afraid there was anything out of the ordinary or improper here. It is all just a pretext, and obviously so. And frankly, it insults the intelligence of the voters to think they will back making it an impeachable offense to look into their own corruption.

      But you want to know who is abusing the immense powers of the US government for electoral gain, and to suborn the results of our elections? The people running the impeachment probe, because for all the reasons above and more, they know there is nothing improper here and are pretending otherwise in hopes that the far left end of the IQ curve in the public and media will fall for it.

      “It does’t look like…”

      Why is it always the dumbest, densest people pick stupid names the opposite of what they are/do?

      Well, no mystery really, the dumb and dense progs always do this.

I will continue and say I wish we would use that power and influence EVEN MORE than Trump already is, with Mexico.

I had the misfortune to find out the reason so many that commit crimes in the U.S.A. flee to Mexico. Our treaty with them does not require them to extradite suspects if the crime in the U.S.A. is not a crime in Mexico.

Here in my town, a drunk driver hit the vehicle with a family of 3 in it and killed one of them. He fled to Mexico and Mexico refuses to extradite, and the State Department or D.O.J. – can’t remember which- sent a letter to the family explaining why even though they know where the killer is in Mexico, Mexico will not agree to extradite him.

I’d like some of our muscle to be used on this problem.

Also explains why there’s so many drunk Mexicans driving on our roads. Different laws, evidently.

    OrJustThink in reply to Close The Fed. | October 20, 2019 at 11:13 am

    Can you site a source for this? I keep thinking of Ethan Couch, who was extradited to the U.S., from Mexico, by Mexicans, for the U.S..

    and… Maritza Joana Lara. After a drunk ‘hit-and-run-to-mexico’, she was collected by U.S. and Mexican officials and brought back to U.S.

    also… Drinking and driving is illegal in Mexico unless you have money for the bribe.

The only thing I can assume is he meant what he had to say.

He can’t be serious. It’s Washington. Only n00bs mean what they say.

A Republican Congressman generally gives a set up because he knows he can’t win reelection or he feels the breath of Democrat DOJ embeds doing things far worse than the quid pro quo Trump has alleged to have done with Ukraine.

Good riddance to rubish. Don’t let the door…

“GOP congressman who was open to impeachment calls it quits”

Bipartisanship is such a gift to Democrats and the Media.

So tired of Quid Pro Quo crapola … the Tooth Fairy and Santa Clause engage in quid pro quo …

Keep draining that swamp! No point having a GOP majority with guys like Rooney. Good riddens.

2smartforlibs | October 20, 2019 at 2:10 pm

Seems redundant. Either way hes retiring.

Not surprising. As I predicted, Pelosi would never have agreed to start impeachment in the House if she did not have at least one GOPe Representative willing to vote in favor of impeachment. Looks like Rooney may be her Huckleberry.

In the Senate Mitt Romneycare is a lock to vote for removal, with Lee and Sasse likely “Yes” votes as well. This is not enough for removal, but it is enough to keep the Senate trial going for weeks (or months, if necessary) while preventing Senate Republicans from bringing up anything damaging to Democrats. Since removal is unlikely the Democrat/GOPe goal is to create Trump Fatigue, whereby (they hope) enough independents will be turned off enough to not vote at all.

“He basically said it’s a quid pro quo, which is not a good thing,” Rooney said.

Incorrect. Mulvaney clarified his statement. There is no quid pro quo. I couldn’t even see in his original press conference where he might have said it, unless some reporter had some super-secret-keyword sense.

Why do I have the feeling this guy worked out a little deal for his support of impeachment? You know, a sort of quid pro quo.

Somebody needs to point out the obvious, so. A reading from the book of obvious.

We can distill what Mulvaney said down from three Latin words, quid pro quo, to one English word. Diplomacy.

Shocka! Countries don’t typically do things for other countries out of a sense of charity. If one country does a favor for another country. And the favor Trump asked Zelensky for was to investigate Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election as part of their overall investigation into past corruption; five minutes before finding out about Trump’s phone conversation with the Ukrainian president investigating foreign interference in the 2016 election was the Democrats’ highest priority before it became an impeachable offense.

What this idiot Rooney, and all of the Democratic operatives inside and outside the MSM, are pretending not to understand is that there is nothing illegal or improper about a quid pro quo per se. There is nothing illegal or improper about delaying the transfer of aid to another country when the aid is delayed for reasons that are unquestionably in our national interest. Such as for the

    Arminius in reply to Arminius. | October 21, 2019 at 7:28 pm

    I didn’t complete this thought although where I was going should have been obvious.

    “If one country does a favor for another country…the first country needs to get something beneficial out of the deal or they won’t do the favor.”

    Quid pro quo – this for that; something in exchange for something. There is nothing illegal or improper about it. When someone goes to a hot rod/car parts swap meet looking for a particular item they’re not going to get what they want if they don’t have something of value to exchange for the part. In the absence of something to exchange (or cash to buy it) the fact that I got the part without a quid pro quo means I stole it.

… (cont.) reasons Mulvaney laid out regarding the delay of aid to Ukraine. 1) to influence our allies to share the burden and 2) ensure Ukraine is serious about fighting the corruption that under Obama meant billions of U.S. taxpayer guaranteed loans intended to stabilize the Ukrainian economy were diverted to the private use of corrupt oligarchs.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/1-8-billion-imf-ukraine-bailout-money-deposited-in-ukraine-oligarch-kolomoyskyis-cyprus-offshore-bank-account/5472971

If the name Kolomoyski seems familiar, he is the corrupt oligarch who founded Burisma, Ukraine’s largest natural gas firm, and remains the controlling partner. He also hired Hunter Biden for a no-show job as a “ceremonial” member of Burisma’s board of directors. Hunter Biden could not speak Ukrainian, had no experience in the fossil fuels industry, had no knowledge of Ukrainian law or regulatory compliance issues (the job he was ostensibly hired to perform) and indeed no experience in legal consultancy whatsoever. Which no doubt explains why he never traveled to Ukraine once while on the Burisma board (hence no-show job). Kolomoski hired Hunter Biden for one reason and one reason only; to buy influence with his dad. Rather than look out for the U.S. taxpayer and tend to U.S. national interests which obviously include looking into the disappearance of $1.8B in U.S. guaranteed IMF bailout money, he instead threatened to harm Ukraine’s economy by withholding another $1 dollars in aid unless the Ukrainian government fire the prosecutor investigating the the theft. Kolommoski got his $80k/mo. money’s worth hiring Hunter.

Again, why use three Latin words for what VP Biden did, quid pro quo, when one English word better describes what Biden did. Extortion.

    Arminius in reply to Arminius. | October 21, 2019 at 5:00 pm

    A quid pro quo is only improper when done for a corrupt purpose. The reasons Mulvaney laid out for withholding aid were entirely appropriate and indeed the Obama administration was derelict for failing to do the same, if not actually complicit given VP Biden’s ties to the Ukrainian corruption from which his son was handsomely profiting.

    Even more basic, Mulvaney wasn’t even describing a quid pro quo since the Ukrainian government had no idea the aid was even being delayed until weeks after the phone call. And in fact had already decided to reopen the investigation into Burisma weeks or months before Trump made the phone call.

    The faux outrage of the left over Trump’s entirely legitimate conduct of foreign policy is disgusting considering they are covered in the sewage of their own actual corruption.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend